FORMER Deputy Roger Perrot had a mantra during his time in the States: ‘A sursis has never done any good – except for the one on St James.’

His argument was that in the vast majority of cases, a delaying motion achieves one thing only – and that’s the delay itself. Of course, delay can be a very attractive option to those faced with tough and potentially unpopular decisions, just because it puts them off for another day.

That postponement usually doesn’t make the decisions any easier when they come back, but that is rarely the motivation. Some support a sursis just because they are feeling sweaty-palmed and nervous about a big step, so they go for the comfort blanket of ‘another report’. Others are really against the proposal in front of the States, but instead of doing the obvious thing and just voting against it, they calculate that a delaying motion is a better tactic. After all, they argue, who can disagree with gathering yet more facts and making a better-informed decision in a few months’ time?

This approach will sometimes succeed because on any controversial issue an alliance of the ‘antis’ and the simply scared will usually come close to a majority. Just occasionally a sursis may be justified, if the States is presented with a clearly under-researched or flawed report.

If a member thinks they might well vote for something, but needs more detail, then it is reasonable to call for that information. However, when they are instinctively against a proposal and can’t see themselves ever backing it, but support a sursis instead of just voting ‘contre’, then that sums up all that is bad with our procrastinating States.

How does this relate to this month’s States meeting? Well, we have the bizarre sursis from Deputy Dave Jones, which calls for the options for waste disposal to be reviewed, within six months, by a panel chaired by himself. What does this achieve, other than a subtle vote of no confidence in PSD, whose mandate clearly charges them with making that assessment?

I suppose such a move is at least flavour of the month following the undermining of both PSRC and Scrutiny.

Some States members claim that PSD has an inherent bias towards incineration. Well, members knew full well that waste disposal would be a major task for PSD when they elected the members to it last year.

It’s also an odd remedy for a perceived bias to give the task to a new panel chaired by a man who has stated clearly his total opposition to incineration in general and Suez in particular. It’s as if they are aiming for an inevitable, eventual, rejection of the current proposal but without the guts to do it cleanly this month.

Such a back door way of proceeding is also a despicable way to treat a commercial company – retaining them as the preferred tenderer, while making it clear that their bid will be accepted only if no other alternative can be found.

To suggest they’ll continue spending their money on preparing for the project under those circumstances is crazy.

What seems certain is that if the States does have to start a third tender process, after rejecting first Lurgi and then Suez, then any serious player in the waste disposal industry would be bonkers to spend money tendering.

What alternatives are to be reviewed by this new ‘independent panel’?

‘Micro incineration’ is one suggestion, but it would be perverse if those States members on record as wholly opposed to incineration were to invite fresh tenders from incinerator companies.

Anyway, one problem with this whole issue is the assumption that the total amount of waste to be disposed of is just that going into Mont Cuet. It’s not. The falling volume going to landfill has been mainly because, with rising gate fees, waste has been diverted to ‘private’ disposal routes elsewhere. This sort of commercial waste management, including open burning, is far worse than modern incineration and hopefully will be closed down by the new waste disposal ordinance.

Likewise, the Jersey export option (which would face huge public opposition there) is limited to 30,000 tons for just 10 years.

So we would need an on-island incinerator to deal with the balance or continue landfilling at Mont Cuet. Environmental health would insist on an expensive ‘transfer station’ and within six years we would have to be going back out to tender for a long-term solution.

Don’t bet against the sursis succeeding.